No climate change alternatives

Just two weeks ago, the mother of surgically-separated Siamese twins Trishna and Krishna enjoyed an emotional reunion with her daughters — their first since Melbourne's medical scientists won an uphill surgical battle late last year when they separated Trishna and Krishna in a 32-hour marathon operation.

However, notwithstanding their joyous reunion, the operation was only a partial success. Like the rest of humanity, Trishna and Krishna are still Siamese twins — we all are. All of us, like it or not, share a planet with no alternative accommodation in sight within this galaxy.

We are all Siamese twins. You, me, your ugly cousin Barney, and the guy next door whom you hate because his loud "music" does not deserve to be called music. (I can't stand his non-music either).

Yes, they are all your Siamese twins.

And no, surgery is not an option.

In most instances this matters little because we can confidently ignore the rest of humanity while pursuing our own solutions to issues ranging from internet censorship to subsidies for the pork insemination industry.

Alas, that approach breaks down when it comes to climate change. Like it or not, other countries' decisions about carbon emissions will affect our welfare, and our own decisions will affect others.

We are all Siamese twins on this planet, with no alternative accommodation in sight within this galaxy.

How, then, should we respond to climate change?

If there is uncertainty about climate change, as many in the media have argued, is it wise to embark on measures to cut emissions? Or should we just relax, do nothing, and adapt to a changing climate?

This impasse is easily resolved: Just analyze and weigh the risks that are associated with business-as-usual, and with undertaking steps to cut emissions.

Suppose we continue with business-as-usual.

That option sounds quite attractive at first glance, because I enjoy my new 4WD and Mark Webber's latest Grand Prix victory just like any other bloke. So why fiddle with a good thing when we are actually quite comfortable?

Unfortunately, when considered more closely, this option appears to have a few flaws.

One of the flaws is that since the 1970s, every decade has been hotter than the preceding one. Another flaw is that sea levels are rising at least as quickly as predicted by the IPCC.

Lest you think those are just cosmetic problems resolved by building better retaining walls, a recent Nature study showed that the ocean's phytoplankton has declined by 40% since the 1950s owing to climate change. Why should you care? Because plankton forms the foundation of the bountiful marine food chain: they produce half the world's oxygen, they suck up CO 2, and without plankton there will be no fish-n-chips or tuna sandwiches.

Satellite pictures show that the Arctic ice is melting faster than even the most pessimistic forecasts had anticipated just a few years ago. And 400 out of 442 glaciers being monitored worldwide are retreating at a rapid rate, thus eventually threatening the drinking water supplies of millions of people.

Oops.

A recent peer-reviewed study showed that every extra degree temperature in a given year increases the likelihood of civil conflict in Africa by 50%. Scientists predict an additional human toll of 390,000 battle fatalities in Africa by 2030 because of climate change.

Anyone who favours a "sit back and adapt" solution is thus doing so at the risk of hundreds of thousands of fatalities among our Siamese twins. And lest you think it's just Africans that are at risk, think again. There is every probability that the drought in the Murray-Darling basin is linked to climate change.

Maybe we should do something then.

But isn't the transition from a fossil-fuel economy to a clean-energy economy scary? Won't it cost too much?

Yes, any transition is scary, especially if you are the fossil fuel industry.

But a transition can also be exciting and rewarding. Remember the information revolution that started in the 1980s? Fast, exhilarating, a wild ride, befuddling to some of us but a lot of fun too. Who wouldn't now prefer Linux and Matlab to FORTRAN IV on punched cards?

And would you really now want to do without the internet and Facebook? Like, do you really want to write letters by hand and lick stamps to tell friends about your party?

Do you want to go back to the days of payphones that always required the one coin not in your pocket, or would you rather whip out your mobile?

What about the typing pools that offered employment in the 1950s and 1960s by squeezing 50 young women into a noisy room with clunky mechanical typewriters? Do you really want those jobs back?

No, of course not.

And in precisely the same way no one will bemoan the departure of noisy, dirty, and dangerous jobs in the coal industry once the transition to other, cleaner sources of energy has been completed.

The situation is this:

In one corner, there are the scientists of the world who overwhelmingly support the consensus that humans are responsible for climate change. Although some irresponsible media organs in this country seemingly do their best to mislead you into thinking otherwise, there is no real scientific debate about climate change. Just a few months ago, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated unequivocally that: "Some scientific conclusions ... have been so thoroughly examined ... that their likelihood of ... being ... wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions ... are ... regarded as … facts. This is the case for the conclusion that the Earth ... is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."

Not surprisingly, therefore, peer-reviewed analyses reveal time and again that more than 95% of expert climate scientists agree that human CO 2 emissions contribute to climate change.

Those scientists, by the way, have no vested interest in the matter because their salaries are not affected by anything the climate does; they are only trying to preserve your children's well-being for the … reward of the transition to a clean-energy economy. It's a reward because a recent CSIRO study indicated that some 3 million jobs could be created in Australia during a 20-year transition to a low-carbon economy, putting to rest the irresponsible and ignorant alarmism of some politicians who falsely link action on climate change with economic decline.

Lest you think that's too optimistic, bear in mind that China just invested US$34.6 billion in renewables, that Denmark cut carbon emissions by 21% between 1990 and 2006 while at the same time increasing its GDP by a whopping 44%, and that Germany reduced carbon emissions by 28% whilst increasing GDP by 32% and creating more than 300,000 clean-energy jobs at the same time.

Oh, and my 6-speed 4WD that has more grunt than the neighbour's BMW produces 30% less CO 2 than the typical Australian family sedan. Lest you think that's too modest a reduction, in Germany the latest green VW spews out 70% less CO 2 than that Australian family sedan — while topping 170 km/h on the autobahn. So cutting emissions can be petrol-headed fun.

In a nutshell, if the scientists are wrong, however unlikely that is, you still get the clean-energy economy and fun cars with reduced emissions.

Oh, and in the other corner, there is the junk-science of some talking heads and media dolts whose conspiracy theories can be debunked in a few mouse clicks. They have a teensy-tiny chance of being right (I am being very, very, very generous). If they are right, then you will not only miss out on the clean-energy jobs already being created in enlightened countries but will continue to bear the health costs of unnecessary pollution.

And if they are wrong, as every serious scientist says they are, then our kids and their children will never forgive us for wrecking the planet we borrowed from them.

It's a no-brainer, really.

Stephan Lewandowsky is a Winthrop Professor and an Australian Professorial Fellow at the University of Western Australia.